Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
checkerboard formation
#16
I think the checkboard formation is,as stated before, designed to allow the passing of retiring soldiers from the front line, and that this formation was designed not to fight a phalanx, but rather a static formation of spearmen, the typical wall of shields, so that the legion, rotating troops, could the pressing onto it until making a break. BTW, I remember that in late XVI century checkboard formations were very popular, squares of pikemen flanked by shot were arranegd leaving gaps for the passing of cavalry <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#17
The checherboard-formation was "re-invented" by the Dutch Prince Maurice in the XVI-XVII century (although he himself thought otherwise, he said he just read a book (Vegetius), nothing more). The idea was launched then as the "rotating frontline": the line of muskettiers was diveded into several lines (like the hastatii, triarri etc). The first line would shoot and then quickly retreat to the back. The second line would then fire and also retraet to the back etc. Eventually the originally first line would then be first again and the sequence would continue. With this requence you get a continues firing line as the muskettiers who had just fired would be quickly replaced with troops with a loaded weapon. The other troops could reload safely behind their own lines.<br>
<br>
Maurice used the changing Roman lines as an example for this. <p>Volo anaticulam cumminosam meam!</p><i></i>
gr,
Jeroen Pelgrom
Rules for Posting

I would rather have fire storms of atmospheres than this cruel descent from a thousand years of dreams.
Reply
#18
The phalanx wasn´t such a rigid formation as many think, the basic manouver unit was the syntagma, and using that many different formations could be deployed, oblique, flanks advanced or refused, inter alia. Peter Connolly´s The Greek armies show some. OTH, although I don´t have any literary evidence, on the example of the XVI century armies, were blocks of around 1.000 pikemen could be deployed independently supported by shot, I wouldn´t be surprised to see a chiliarchia of 4 syntagmata acting independently supported by skirmishers. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#19
You are of course right pelgr003, but in my previous post I was thinking in some battles of the Religion Wars in France, and even earlier, for instance at the battle of Ceresole (1544), where both sides deployed thier infantry in big blocks some distance apart each one, to make room for the passing of the heavy cavaly. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#20
The Phalanx was not a rigid formation- the way Phillip and Alexander organized them. But the Successor States aparently did not fully grasp the potential and definently undertrained their men in anything other than a rugby scrum streight ahead. The pikes also seem to have gotten longer. An eqivilant to 16 English feet, including head, was wieldable farely easily, reenactors of 16th and 17th century European pikemen can tell. But in the Successor states you hear of pikes that would be the equivilant of up to 21 English feet long. These would be barely controlable in a straight ahead push, and it seems that was their purpose, to crash through by just having greater reach than all enemies.<br>
<br>
All of which ment that the syntagama became less mobile and more likely to break up over terrain or if asked to move rapidly over a distance, which the legionares could then exploit. The pila was also a way of outreaching the pike, while the pikes themselves provided some protection from a overhead shower of missiles, a running cast launched from just beyond pike range at low angle would have been very effective against the front rankers. Slipping between their lowered points and the angled points held over their heads. In Philip and Alexanders time, peltasts and archers helped screen them from this. From the results it seems that the Epriots also understood the combination, though that didn't keep them from getting mauled in the process.<br>
<br>
The cohort was kind of like the Syntagama. I have a idea that it partially replaced the manipular ordos because they took less time to deploy into a useable combat formation and were individually better able to protect themselves if they were intercepted while deploying.<br>
<br>
Once they were IN line the maniples were not that vulnerable to people shooting the gaps, because there were very few armies with a combat formation smaller then the front of a maniple. Although Bruggman on his webside showed with his time/speed/distance studies that it could take a while for a posterior century to get up alongside the prior century, there were shortcuts. A maniple could just uncover its prior century, forming a "sawtooth" line, which would quickly level itself out once contact was made. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#21
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Although Bruggman on his webside showed with his time/speed/distance studies that it could take a while for a posterior century to get up alongside the prior century, there were shortcuts. <hr><br>
I'm interested in this website. Could you give me a link? <p>Greetings<br>
<br>
Rob Wolters</p><i></i>
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#22
Gary's site is apparently down temporarily. Here's the URL so you can check it:<br>
<br>
webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/ <p>Legio XX<br>
Fortius Conamur<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#23
Thanks! <p>Greetings<br>
<br>
Rob Wolters</p><i></i>
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#24
what pelgr003 said sounds like the replacing was only used to get more men to use their missile/fire power. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: